CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF EVOLTUION (CAE) MODEL LESSON:
Watch the Video Icons of Evolution (documentary, 51 min.)
More related links, Intelligent Design Audio and Video.
Research on Intelligent Design.
From Aspect 2 - Ohio Department of Education's Critical Analysis of Evolution
Transitional fossils are rare in the fossil record. A growing number of scientists now question that Archaeopteryx and other transitional fossils really are transitional forms. The fossil record as a whole shows that major evolutionary changes took place suddenly over brief periods of time followed by longer periods of "stasis" during which no significant change in form or transitional organisms appeared (Punctuated Equilibria).
The "Cambrian explosion" of the animal phyla is the best known, but not the only example of the sudden appearance of new biological forms in the fossil record.
Indicator 1c
Patterns of diversification and extinction of organisms are documented in the fossil record. Evidence ALSO indicates that simple, bacteria-like life may have existed billions of years ago. HOWEVER, IN MANY CASES THE FOSSILS RECORD IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH GRADUAL, UNBROKEN SEQUENCES POSTULATED BY BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION
From Aspect 1 - Ohio Department of Education 's Critical Analysis of Evolution (see below the other 3 Aspects):
Some scientists think similarities in anatomical and genetic structures reflect similar functional needs in different animals, not common ancestry. The nucleotide sequence of hemoglobin DNA is very similar between chimps and humans, but this may be because they provide the same function for both animals. Also, if similar anatomical structures really are the result of a shared evolutionary ancestry, then similar anatomical structures should be produced by related genes and patterns of embryological development. However, sometimes, similar anatomical structures in different animals are built from different genes and by different pathways of embryological development. Scientists can use these different anatomical structures and genes to build versions of Darwin family trees that will not match each other. This shows that diverse forms of life may have different ancestry.
Indicator 1f Aspect 1:
Homology (page 326)
The view that living things in all the major kingdoms are modified descendants of a common ancestor (described in the pattern of a branching tree) has been challenged in recent years.
i. Discrepancies in the molecular evidence (e.g. differences in relatedness inferred from sequence studies of different proteins) previously thought to support that view.
ii. A fossil record that shows sudden bursts of increased complexity (the Cambrian
Explosion), long periods of stasis and the absence of abundant transitional forms rather than steady gradual increases in complexity,
iii. Studies that show animals follow different rather than identical early stages of embryological development.
MICROEVOLUTION.
Evolution resulting from succession of relatively small genetic variations that often cause the formation of new subspecies.
To help ensure academic clarity, this lesson distinguishes between microevolution and macroevolution. Teachers may need to provide support to students to help them understand this distinction throughout the lesson.
Indicator 3d
WHETHER MICROEVOLUTION CAN BE EXTRAPOLATED TO EXPLAIN MACROEVOLUTIONARY CHANGES (SUCH AS NEW COMPLEX ORGANS OR BODY PLANS AND NEW BIOCHEMICAL SYSTEMS WHICH APPEAR IREREDUCIBLY COMPLEX) IS CONTROVERSIAL. THESE KINDS OF MACROEVOLUTIONARY EXPLANATIONS GENERALLY ARE NOT BASED ON DIRECT OBSERVATIONS AND OFTEN REFLECT HISTORICAL NARRATIVES BASED ON INFERENCES FROM INDIRECT OR CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.
Leonard's Capitals for his guide and Power Point presentation at The Kansas State Department of Education
http://www.ksde.org/outcomes/scienceexptestileonard.html
In Leonard's Power Point presentation he presented some of his results and educational references:
Macroevolution
http://www.ksde.org/outcomes/scepttestimonyleonard2.pdf
Question to the Students:
Which of the following would be more interesting for you to learn?
1. The scientific information supporting macroevolution only?
2. The scientific information supporting and challenging macroevolution?
Out of 350 students who responded to the question (350 students total), 312 (89%) students stated they would be more interested in learning the scientific information supporting and challenging macroevolution.
Higher student interest = Higher test performances
"When reading in areas of individual interest, students display heightened attention"
Brophy, Jere (2004). Motivating students to learn (2 nd edition). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Chapter 8, Other ways to support students' intrinsic motivation.
Teaching contradicting information and multiple points of views (such as supporting and challenging) help stimulate more complete understanding and critical thinking.
In Jere Brophy's book, the importance of presenting students with information that contradicts other information was discussed. Presenting contradictory information forces students to recognize that the issue is more complicated than they thought, and stimulates students to develop more complete understandings.
Six facets of Understanding
Facet 4: Perspective: Critical and insightful points of view
"Students have opportunity to take multiple points of view on the same issue. They must develop and use critical thinking skills to determine, on their own, the strengths and weaknesses of the theories, explanations, proofs, and arguments they confront. Thus, the student should regularly confront plausible but incorrect historical narratives, false mathematical proofs, and plausible but outdated scientific theories."
Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (1998). Understanding By Design. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Alexandria, Virginia.
Then Leonard asked to his students:
Do you think you learned more about macroevolution as a result of being taught the supporting and challenging information as opposed to being taught only the supporting information?
Briefly explain why.
Out of 61 students who responded to the question (69 students grand total), 57 (93%) of the students felt they learned more about macroevolution.
Student 1
"I feel much more knowledgeable knowing both sides."
Student 2
"I was given information twice on the subject concerning evolution instead of just one."
Student 3
"I learned a lot more. By teaching only supporting information, its like teaching only half of the information out there."
Briefly explain your personal view of being taught both the scientific information supporting and challenging macroevolution.
Out of 50 students who responded to the statement (69 students grand total), 49 (98%) students claimed to have had a positive experience.
Student 4
"I feel that it is good because you are covering both sides."
Student 5
"It was a good experience."
Student 6
"It's a way to stimulate minds."
Student 7
"You learn less if you hear only one side of the story."
Student 8
"If it is just supporting it is dull"
Did you like the lesson?
Out of 57 students who responded to the question (69 students grand total), 55 (96%) of the students liked the lesson.
Student 9
"Yes, because being only taught one would probably make me side with that belief because I wouldn't know of any other"
Student 10
"I felt I was given a choice to choose my views rather than have it chosen for me."
Student 11
"I liked it because I was not forced to believe one certain thing, but I could choose for myself."
Student 12
"I didn't like it, but it still needs to be done because we aren't really sure of the truth."
From the Ohio Department of Education we have the next document endorsing the Critical Analysis of Evolution - Grade 10
Ohio Standards Connection:
Life Sciences:
Benchmark H
Describe a foundation of biological evolution as the change in gene frequency of a population over time. Explain the historical and current scientific developments, mechanisms and processes of biological evolution.
Indicator 23
Describe how scientists continue to investigate and critically analyze aspects of evolutionary theory. (The intent of this benchmark does not mandate the teaching or testing of intelligent design.)
Scientific Ways of Knowing
Benchmark A
Explain that scientific knowledge must be based on evidence, be predictive, logical, subject to modification and limited to the natural world.
Indicator 2
Describe that scientists may disagree about phenomena, about interpretation of data or about the value of rival theories, but they do agree that questioning, response to criticism and open communication are integral to the process of science.
Indicator 3
Recognize that science is a systematic method of continuing investigation, based on observation, hypothesis testing, measurement, experimentation, and theory building, which leads to more adequate explanations of natural phenomena.
To help ensure academic clarity, this lesson distinguishes between microevolution and macroevolution. Teachers may need to provide support to students to help them understand this distinction throughout the lesson.
Ask students to think through the following science topics and discuss where anomalies led to the collection of data that further explained the phenomena and contributed to changing scientific understandings.
Spontaneous generation versus biogenesis
Several pieces of data could be used. One example is Francesco Redi's observation that flies must contact meat in order for maggots to appear on the meat.
Instructional Tip:
Encourage all students to participate in the critical analysis activity because the experience will be a learning opportunity.
Be prepared, however, to distribute alternate assignments to students who do not want to participate.
There are no winners or losers in this critical analysis activity. This is a sharing of the results of their research concerning evolution.
Then, starting in page 9 through 12 we have 37 references for teachers, including:
Carroll, Robert L. (1997/98). "Limits to Knowledge of the Fossil Record". Zoology. 100 (1997/98): 221-231.
Cherfas, J. "Exploring the Myth of the Melanic Moth." New Scientist. (1986): 25.
Chinn, Clark. "An Empirical Test of a Taxonomy of Responses to Anomalous Data in Science." Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 35:6 (1998).
Denton, Michael. Evolution: A Theory in Crisis. Bethesda: Adler and Adler, 1986.
Doolittle, W. Ford "Uprooting the Tree of Life," Scientific American, 282 (2000): 90-95.
Faust, David. The Limits of Scientific Reasoning. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1984.
Mahoney, Michael. "Publication Prejudices: an Experimental Study of Confirmatory Bias in the Peer Review System." Cognitive Therapy and Research. 1:2 (1977): 161-175.
Mynatt, Clifford. "Confirmation Bias in a Simulated Research Environment: An Experimental Study of Scientific Inference." Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology. 29 (1977): 85-95.
Philippe, Herve, and Patrick Forterre. "The Rooting of the Universal Tree of Life is Not Reliable." Journal of Molecular Evolution 49 (1999): 509-523.
Thomson , Keith S. "Macroevolution: The Morphological Problem," American Zoologist 32 (1992): 106-112.
Etc.
From its Attachments:
Aspect 3
The increase in the number of antibiotic resistant bacterial strains demonstrates the power of natural selection to produce small but limited changes in populations and species. It does not demonstrate the ability of natural selection to produce new forms of life. Although new strains of Staphylococcus aureus have evolved, the speciation of bacteria (prokaryotes) has not been observed, and neither has the evolution of bacteria into more complex eukaryotes. Thus, the phenomenon of antibiotic resistance demonstrates microevolution.
Aspect 4
English peppered moths show that environmental changes can produce microevolutionary changes within a population.
They do not show that natural selection can produce major new features or forms of life, or a new species for that matter; i.e., macroevolutionary changes. From the beginning of the industrial revolution, English peppered moths came in both light and dark varieties. After the pollution decreased, dark and light varieties still existed. All that changed during this time was the relative proportion of the two traits within the population. No new features and no new species emerged. In addition, recent scientific articles have questioned the factual basis of the study performed during the 1950s. Scientists have learned that peppered moths do not actually rest on tree trunks. This has raised questions about whether color changes in the moth population were actually caused by differences in exposure to predatory birds.
Aspect 5
Laboratory tests have not yet demonstrated that small bacteria (prokaryotic cells) can change into separate organelles, such as mitochondria and chloroplasts within larger bacterial cells. When smaller bacterial cells (prokaryotes) are absorbed by larger bacterial cells, they are usually destroyed by digestion. Although some bacterial cells (prokaryotes) can occasionally live in eukaryotes, scientists have not observed these cells changing into organelles such as mitochondria or chloroplasts.
[Here I must add that the production of proteins for the mitochondria from information contained in the nucleus of the cell, and hence alien to the mitochondria itself that lacks of such information, is a strong evidence of a planned design from the beginning of the cell with its multiple mitochondria within]
In the Complete Testimony of Bryan Leonard
http://www.ksde.org/outcomes/schearing05062005.pdf (pages 1 to 17 there) we read that Leonard, was able to be a part of the science writing committee for the State of Ohio in which each of the members on the science writing committee had to write exemplar curriculum lessons plans that were in line with the Ohio State standards. And he served on that committee writing science curriculum for 10th graders.
The State Board of Ohio adopted a science standard that would cause students to understand how science is criticized evolutionary theory.
The lesson on the Critical Analysis of Evolution linked above and approved by the Ohio Department of Education, went through an extensive peer review process that's going to benefit students.
In Leonrad's own words, related to his testimony for a better Education in Kansas:
"... it does appear that the Minority report has a wonderful beginning, wonderful-- you know, so it's definitely heading in the right direction. And basically some of the things that are brought up in the Minority report we actually have embedded in the critical analysis of evolution lesson in Ohio. So again, we used it in Ohio. It works. Kids love it. Again, parents call me and pull me to the side. They love it."
//////////////
In page 3 of http://www.ksde.org/outcomes/schearing05062005.pdf
We read that Mr. Calvert textually asked to Bryan A. Leonard:
"I want to get back in history a bit. As I understand it, I believe it was 2002 the State Board of Ohio adopted a science standard that would cause students to understand how science is criticized evolutionary theory. Is that the case?"
Leonard's answer:
"Yes, that's correct."
Then Mr. Calvert asks:
"And as a result of that indicator, after the adoption of that, the Ohio State Board commissioned a group of scientists to develop lesson plans to support that. Is that correct?"
Leonard's answer:
"Yes. A group of scientists, a group of science educators, both in teaching high school biology as well as evolution biology."
Question of Mr. Calvert:
"And you were assigned that committee and worked with it?"
Leonard's answer:
"Yes, sir."
Mr. Calvert asked in a further question:
"Maybe you could tell us a bit about the process of developing a lesson plan and your involvement in the committee?"
Leonard answered that the lesson was a product of a lot of steps. A lot of fingerprints that are on the final lesson plan.
Then Leonard continued:
"As I said, I was the original drafter, however, I presented the lesson in front of our writing committee, our 10th grade writing committee. The 10th grade writing committee consisted, again, of-- of research scientists, a veterinarian, high school biology teachers, and so having gone through that process, the lesson was kind of tweaked, molded, shaped into the best lesson that we could actually design to the students in Ohio. The lesson was also tweaked and shaped and molded by other people. Our advisory team had input in it. The Ohio Department of Education officials, they had input in it, and also the lesson was field tested, so we sent it out to the field, university professors, other biology school teachers, community members, scientists. They all read it. There's a number of them who actually reviewed the lesson. There's some who actually-- actually used the lesson in the classroom, okay, per the-- our-- our requests for the field test and to give us feedback. And we tried our best to respond appropriately to the feedback to design the lesson how to best serve our students. So like I said, this lesson went through an extensive, extensive peer review process, and what we have here is basically what we think is a good product that's going to benefit students and an excellent product that's going to help increase students' knowledge on evolution."
Nobody denies the common ancestry within the same kind of organism, 'certainly microevolutionary', or as BA Leonard may have said it: 'subspeciational' (smile).
I can say then that "Macroevolution" is the darwinian speculation that imposes that what we observe in microevolution should also be believed by a blind evolutionary faith as if happening beyond the realm of true kinds of organisms.
Then we can read in each page of the actual document on the Critical Analysis of Evolution, in its upper left: "Ohio Department of Education":
http://www.texscience.org/files/critical-analysis-evolution.pdf
As my previous question was:
"Is now the Ohio State University going against one of his own and outstanding M.S. and researchers, a dedicated student willing to receive his PhD in Science Education?"
Bryan A. Leonard received not only his M. S. in Microbiology by the Ohio State University, but he also did:
http://www.ksde.org/outcomes/sceptcvleonard.pdf
1- Laboratory Research in Pathology and Pharmacy from June 1998-August 1998, and from June 1999-August 1999 in the Ohio State University Medical/Science Research Initiative (MRI), where he conducted kidney transplant research and quantified Alkaline Phosphotase presence in blood sample from patients with autoimmune disease plus Studied regional chemotherapy techniques.
2- And not only that, but he also was a Graduate Teaching Assistant (GTA) from Sept. 1993 to June 1994 in the Ohio State University, a GTA imparting undergraduate, graduate courses in Microbiology. He was responsible for teaching laboratory courses in animal cell tissue culture, clinical microbiology for dental students, and general microbiology.
3- And he was at the Laboratory Research in Microbiology/Immunology (March 1992-June 1994) in the Ohio State University Graduate program in Microbiology. Where he studied the antimicrobial mechanisms of macrophages to control and kill the intracellular bacterium, Brucella abortus, and also performed infection experiments with transformed and nontransformed macrophages, doing extensive animal tissue culture work.
4- Additionally, he did Laboratory Research in Microbiology/Molecular Biology (June-Sept. 1991) in the Ohio State University Graduate program in Microbiology, where he induced site specific and random mutagenesis on genes to determine the effects of these mutations on Carbon dioxide fixation by photosynthetic bacteria. Genetic engineering, using PCR and DNA cloning.
If that is not an outstanding record within the Ohio State University, so then, what can be? The life of Bryan A. Leonard's has been at the Ohio State University and now the Ohio State University is turning its back on him? And all of this only because of some resented bullied critics and biased macroevolutionary dark spots? [stealing an expression from Lynn Margulis (temporary link at "Sciam", Printer-Friendly Version): "I differ from the neo-Darwinian bullies on this point" (smile)]
Lynn Margulis' immediate context is in the research area that I am willing to pursue. Before mentioning those darwinian bullies, Lynn Margulis declared: "I think we are missing important information about the origins of variation.", so here she declares the same thing that Bryan Leonard declared in his Critical Analysis of Evolution where he wants to clearly point out the differences between the testable microchange, which he calls "microevolution", as we have seen it in my previous posting, within species to produce new subspecies, versus the untestable and speculative "macroevolution", the chant of the macroevos, of those neo-darwininan macroevos (smile), but Leonard gets trapped by those "the bullies" 'cause he isn't as famous as her? (smile).
Are the macroevos so non-sensical that even they have tried to put, time after time and in so numerous posting boards, the fertile interbreeding of subspecies as an example of "macroevolution"? This is one of the natural "silverswords" that still hits at the very heart of those neo-darwininan non-sensical macroevos! (smile).
In the past, Arthur Custance's Ph degree was denied by an evolutionist atheist because Custance affirmed the existence of a real, a literal Adam and Eve! So do I! Haven't the right and the freedom to do so? ("It was 1951, in Canada")
I repeat it again: The work of Bryan Leonard seems to be properly done and well referenced, carefully following Ohio's standards of Education, adopted and approved by the "Ohio Department of Education", so Bryan Andrew Leonard deserves his PhD in Science Education to be granted!
His 1991 Kentucky State University 's B.S. Major was in Biology Education, so doesn't he know what he is talking about? He has been teaching in High School since 1996 to the Present and has been a teacher in the Mount Carmel College of Nursing (Jan. 1996-July 1996), so you still thik that doesn't Leonard know what he is talking about?
Students and Parents of Leonard's students, please, take a stand to support Bryan Andrew Leonrad 's PhD degree!
As a student myself, the guidelines of Bryan Leonard's "Critical Analysis of Evolution" are being very useful in my study and understanding of varieties within similar kinds of organisms:
http://www.iscid.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=6;t=000553
-------------
We are here taking a stand on behalf of Bryan Andrew Leonard's PhD the best we can!
http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/187
Non-darwinian scientists and researchers,
Darwinian fictions aside and we are dealing here with a real name, with a real person, not with a pseudonym in a fictitious location. "Darwinist professors take aim at graduate students", so we are dealing here with real people suffering darwinian punishment, in this case, Bryan Andrew Leonard.
Leonard proposed the great "Critical Analysis of Evolution" for schools, a great tool for the progress of scientific education and for a sound reasoning.
Oh that many more real people like Dembski, Behe, Meyer, Sternberg, Leonard, Salvador Cordova, Guillermo Gonzalez, etc., will be able to arise defeating fear and taking a bold standing for everything that is sound and trustworthy in science!
So, stand still for Bryan Leonard's PhD!
------------------
Brief of my last posting inspired by Leonard's "Critical Analysis of Evolution":
I keep working day after day, almost every day on finding more and more evidences or examples of the evolutionary failure to clearly explain the differences between varieties (genetic compatibility) and 'species':
http://www.geocities.com/plin9k/limiting-species.htm
Those Cichlids that you mentioned before are just "subspecies", not "new species" which is the presumed claim for evolutionary 'speciation', which is 'par' to 'macroevolution'.
Being the key and practical factor, the "FERTILE OFFSPRING".
"In these cloudy areas, bright color morphs have disappeared and the fish have become similar and dull in appearance through hybridization" (Seehausen et al. 1997).
http://www.cichlidae.com/articles/a110.html
Cichlids "produce viable, fertile hybrids":
Turner GF, Seehausen O, Knight ME, Allender CJ, Robinson RL. How many species of cichlid fishes are there in African lakes? Mol Ecol. 2001 Mar;10(3):793-806.
Here again, there is one true species with limitless varieties, with limitless sub-species
Cichlid Pictures: http://www.accuracyingenesis.com/kind.html
http://www.cichlids.com/gallery
The evidence is clear for everybody to see, but 'what the heck', you, Richard B. Hoppe (RBHoppe, RBH) don't have time to go on deeper on this, right? However you have more than enough and sufficient time not only to flood the Internet but also to bash down the related works of Bryan Leonard (sorry but that's not fair), of myself, and of others, right? And all this "in the name of Darwin" and supporting his evolutionary speculations at the macrolevel, right?
Next is the last example of Myrmecos, also a phony and false 'speciation' example (initially, even Raymond Bohlin and many others, as seen in his 1980's book, was deceived by such sorts of 'evidences'):
Laupala, a group of forest-dwelling Hawaiian crickets: "acoustic variants can interbreed and hybridize" http://www.life.umd.edu/biology/faculty/shaw
At least, more than 150 varieties from a single pair of genetic colonizers. Plate from Otte's book showing Hawaiian crickets and a picture of a semi-transparent Cave Cricket, photo by Bill Mull: http://www.hawaii-forest.com/essays/9902.html
RBH, you claimed in your last posting that you are extremely busy to review this literature, but how else superficial views blindly endorsing 'speciation' and all the other darwinian charades can be corrected?
The reality is that all those examples are of organisms that change at the level of subspecies, never a-la macro, always on the micro-level.
As I just wrote elsewhere:
http://www.arn.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php/ubb/get_topic/f/14/t/001464/p/2.html#000049
"I am working on molecular biology and I see the evidences for the biological change and for variation within true organisms (microevolution), but I don't see any shred of evidence for a saltational speculative speciational darwinian macroevolution!"
And also:
"I am working in the forefront of Biology without accepting the dogma of those 'dominant' bullies of science. Do you want me to believe now that such illusory worldview had something?"
Let me give you an example of the practical advantages of considering them subspecies, as they really are, instead of considering them, and all their variants as a delusional different species, as delusional evidences of 'speciation'. No more should exist the fearful idea of the invaders leading to the total extinction of native organisms, what happens is that in many times (it goes unnoticed), and I must say, those organisms don't get extinct, but rather, they blend, they hybridize producing a fertile offspring. This may not mean anything for a superficial evolutionist acting as a political activist, but these details mean a deal of difference for those attempting to understand and to preserve organisms.
You can try to retort all rhetoric you may have, but that won't change the facts for those persons that love detailed and meticulous observations, as hope many of such persons will be reading this, my humble postigs, in contrast to the useless and 'imposed' speculations of darwinian macroevolution. See the next gem:
Hybrids Consummate Species Invasion. Wade Roush. Science 277(5324):316-317 (Jul., 1997).
"biologists at the University of Notre Dame in Indiana are finding that the local crayfish are having their own effect on the invader [crayfish], as the two species produce a new population of vigorous hybrids. The finding is a surprise, researchers say, because ecologists often expect animal hybrids to be sterile, unable to play more than a bit part in species invasions. But at the Annual Evolution and Natural History meetings here, William Perry, a graduate student in the labs of ecologist David Lodge and biologist Jeff Feder, described molecular studies showing that hybrids of Kentucky native Orconectes rusticus, or the rusty crayfish, and a native crayfish, O. propinquus (the blue crayfish), are indeed fertile."
Which means that those crayfishes, even when mistakenly named as members of two different species (thence, supposedly 'speciated'), in reality they are only members of the same main organism (I try not to use here the word "kind" that RBH rejects, but only for RBH, in order for me at least in this way, being able to reach RBH).
From the same Article:
"these hybrids are outcompeting both natives and invaders. The rusty crayfish, it appears, is taking over by assimilation hybrids were assumed to be less important than other species-replacement mechanisms backcrosses between hybrids and rusty crayfish were nearly as common as first-generation hybrids, indicating that hybrids are fertile and that they tend to mate with rusty crayfish rather than with each other. Together, the first generation hybrids and backcrosses accounted for 30 % of the crayfish in one lake. The apparent prowess of the hybrids may be speeding the invasion. When Perry put rusty and blue crayfish in tanks with similarly sized hybrids, the hybrids beat both species in competition for food - such as insects and aquatic plants - and for shelters under rock piles. They are actually more competitive than the invader"
This is a profitable example of subspeciation or microevolution from the University of Notre Dame in Indiana. A work with practical results.
Other works of William L. Perry are:
Perry, William. 1998. Ecological and genetic impact of a nonindigenous freshwater crayfish. Ph.D. thesis, U Notre Dame.
Wilson, Karen A., John J. Magnuson, David M. Lodge, Anna M. Hill, Tim K. Kratz, William L. Perry, and Theodore V. Willis. 2004. A long term rusty crayfish (Orconectes rusticus) invasion: dispersal patterns and community change in a north temperate lake. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. (in press)
Wilson, Karen A., John Magnuson, David Lodge, Tim Kratz, Anna Hill, and William Perry. 1998. Community effects of an omnivorous invader: the sequential invasion of Trout Lake, WI by the rusty crayfish (Orconectes rusticus). Bull. Ecological Society of America, Annual Meeting Supplement.
Horvath, T.G., G.A. Lamberti, D.M. Lodge, and W.L. Perry. 1996. Zebra mussels in flowing waters: role of headwater lakes in downstream dispersal. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 15:564-575.
Perry, W.L., D.M. Lodge, and G.A. Lamberti. 1997. Impact of crayfish predation on exotic zebra mussels and native invertebrates in a lake-outlet stream. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 54:120-125.
Perry, W.L., D.M. Lodge, G.A. Lamberti. 2000. Crayfish (Orconectes rusticus) impacts on zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorpha) recruitment, other macroinvertebrates and algal biomass in a lake-outlet stream. American Midland Naturalist 144:308-316.
Perry, W.L., J.L. Feder, G. Dwyer, and D.M. Lodge. 2001. Hybrid zone dynamics and species replacement between Orconectes crayfishes in a northern Wisconsin lake. Evolution 55:1153-1166.
Perry, W.L., J.L. Feder, and D.M. Lodge. 2001. Implications of hybridization between introduced and resident Orconectes crayfishes. Conservation Biology 15:1656-1666.
Perry, W.L., D.M. Lodge, and J.L. Feder. 2002. Importance of hybridization of indigenous and nonindigenous freshwater species: an overlooked threat to North American biodiversity. Systematic Biology 51:255-275.
Feder JL, Berlocher SH, Roethele JB, Dambroski H, Smith JJ, Perry WL, Gavrilovic V, Filchak KE, Rull J, Aluja M. Allopatric genetic origins for sympatric host-plant shifts and race formation in Rhagoletis. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2003 Sep 2;100(18):10314-9.
Very different Perry's work on Orconectes crayfishes when compared to the useless and identical experiments done with Gasterosteus (Threespine stickleback) fishes by Schluter D et al to try to 'prove' or to justify the illusory darwinian 'speciation' and 'macroevolution'. Work done to keep on supporting a debunked worldview, even when Schluter himself declares "all previous crosses between closely related freshwater sticklebacks have not revealed any intrinsic reduction in offspring viability".
http://www.iscid.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-6-t-000553.html#000001
Schluter was strongly endorsed by the Grants couple (you may know them, their second name is Grant), the scholars of another falsely so-called 'speciation' event, this time among the Galapagos finches, which also is only a 'subspeciation' event with interfertile hybrids, like we have seen here that happens with the Orconectes within themselves and in the Gasterosteus within themselves.
The fact that darwinian evolution is not true can be seen also in the Galapagos' finches, they are the same species or kind: "fertile parents = fertile offspring." Nothing is 'evolving' beyond the natural limits established within the species:
Darwin's Avian Muses Continue To Evolve. Carl Zimmer. Science 26 April 2002; 296: 633-635. http://www.carlzimmer.com/articles/2002/articles_2002_Finch.html
"The two species on Daphne Major can and sometimes do interbreed, and their hybrids--far from being mulelike reproductive dead ends--are a source of fresh genetic variability." "Interbreeding may be one of the secrets... hybrids may be an unrecognized factor..." "... few desperate males [cactus finches] mated with female ground finches, which then produced perfectly healthy and fertile hybrids." "As a result, ground finch genes are flowing into the cactus finch gene pool--a process called introgression--making their beaks blunter." "Other biologists are surprised that two distantly related species can produce healthy hybrids..." "This new source of genetic diversity makes it easier for a species with donated genes to adapt to a changing environment, the Grants claim."
So, who the Grants try to fool by affirming later that the previous event is an example of "darwinian 'speciation' "? When in reality this is the natural variability within similar kinds of organisms, a 'subspeciational' event which evolutionists refuse to fully acknowledge even to this day?
As W. Kunz declared: "Regrettably, 140 years after the publication of Darwin's Origin of Species, we face the grotesque situation that we still do not know what is a species whose origin Darwin wanted to explain" (Trends Parasitol. 2002 Mar;18(3):121-4. When is a parasite species a species? Kunz W. [Comment in: Trends Parasitol. 2002 Oct;18(10):439-40; author's reply 440.])
That non-Christian Darwin lied to all of us, he never explained any 'origin of species', Darwin just played around on describing some new varieties within similar organisms whose deceitfully he called 'species', and until this day, those organisms are not or will never be new or different permanent new 'species'.
So, Schluter's Gasterosteus 'speciation' and the Grants' finches 'speciation' are staunchly lies and contradictions that, however, to keep up with the lie of evolution, such miss-information has been shouted even more intensely that the well-chanted statement by Art related to those members of the Hawaiian "Silver Swords", to be found in the link that I posted above. Not so well voiced has been the jewel of work done at the U. of Notre Dame by student Perry. Why? Is it the smell of ideological bias here? You bet!
A lot of examples similar to that work at Notre Dame appear next. Notice however that the new note of Perry's work was the emphasis on mixing up of characters invader/native, instead of thinking in terms of replacement (extinction of 'species', that rather should be called, the 'mingling of varieties', but the key point is that the complete genetic load still is present there, to produce an even more abundant variation!). Replacement rather than intermingling of gene-loads was the old idea of 1993. Today, the same fear is based on ignorance and is very rooted on the false claim that evolution is the " 'cornerstone' for a confused biology and ecology of to-day" (smile).
Please, RBH, notice the full reference below. I am only pointing here the significant aspects that we are studying. I never try to consciously quote-mine things, as many times evolutionists charge us:
Cryptic Intercontinental Hybridization in Daphnia (Crustacea): The Ghost of Introductions past. Derek J. Taylor; Paul D. N. Hebert. Proceedings: Biological Sciences 254(1340):163-168 (Nov., 1993).
"Daphnia galeata. Four populations from the lower Lauretian Great Lakes were genetically intermediate between North American and European populations extensive hybridization"
"the introductions of rainbow trout, Oncorhynchus mykiss, in North America have resulted in hybridization and partial replacement of the native cutthroat trout, Oncorhynchus clarki"
"Similarly, hybridization involving introduced Pecos pupfish, Cyprinodon pecoensis, in Texas and New Mexico and introduced guppies, Poecilia reticulata in Trinidad"
"heterozygote excesses involving alleles introgressed [reticulated] from D. rosea to D. g. mendotae" [which leads to a fertile hybridization]
Instead of thinking with fear about introduced or invader organisms, as it happens still today among 'evologists', ecologists and biologists, if we learn to tame and to control such hybridizations and its resultant hybrid vigour, we can not be losing varieties ('cause those are not different 'species' but only different and interfertile varieties).
With the emphasis on this new knowledge then, instead we are going to GAIN NEW VARIETIES, which is not 'speciation', as I keep repeating, because those are not 'new species' but rather, those are only interfertile subspecies. Is it fair that instead of givig up for the truth of these thousands of clear and straightforward examples of variation within organisms, evolutionists rather prefer the darkness of keep on looking for the hardest situations to explain...?
The beauty of the classes that Leonard is presenting, is that this concept of subspeciation and its corresponding microevolution is clearly presented there!
A similar way of reasoning I am applying to my micro research, and so, instead of only thinking about the artifacts in molecular biology as useless things. Now I am thinking on taming those events, already present on the lab, and using them for protein engineering, for example. Such are some of the "Intelligent Design" models that I mentioned in one of my former article reviews. The same one that you improperly qualified beforehand as a "fraud".
http://www.arn.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php/ubb/get_topic/f/14/t/001048.html
I am unable to present all details of it, there or here, because that line of research, I hope, will continue to provide me with my daily bread through publications, until a financier, a public or private company, be interested on them! However, anybody searching carefully enough can reach the same results,
I believe that the real and practical entrepreneur will tell me, "I don't care how you call it!, I don't care about theories, as far as it works, I don't care how you call it"
But reality is that today, with all that evolutionary parafernalia and all that opposition to any alternative to evolution, we have not been able to be there, yet. As you are well aware of, superficial boasters pro-evolution are doing all that they can to discourage and to prevent the progress of any other alternative, no matter how practical can be!
Until now, evolutionism in all its morphs dominates, at the same time, extinction of varieties of living organisms is rampant.
I just want to let everybody know that we, with funds and willing collaborators [and I speak not only for myself, or even not at all for me, but for all that new and willing generation of researchers that faithful teachers like Leonard are preparing right now].
I reiterate, it is time to demonstrate that with this new view of "Intelligent Design" applied to the ecosystems, as well as to molecular research, which is what I have been proposing here, instead of losing organisms, we can take the initiative to produce more and new varieties within them!
RBH, I just want to study and to leave the evidence for everybody to see.
The fact of the articles that you are linking here is 'subspeciation' or the origin of new varieties, never the origin of 'new species', for example, from the first link that you present:
Phylogeny of a rapidly evolving clade: The cichlid fishes of Lake Malawi, East Africa. R. C. Albertson, J. A. Markert, P. D. Danley, and T. D. Kocherdagger. PNAS Vol. 96, Issue 9, 5107-5110, April 27, 1999
"...mbuna will hybridize under artificial conditions (McElroy, D. M. & Kornfield, I. Copeia 1993, 933-945)... We cannot rule out a role for hybridization during the early radiation of the flock..."
That's precisely the key of my studies to demonstrate that there is genetic compatibility, that the offspring produced is fertile, which will help us in the engineering of new varieties. Again, those cichlids are not different 'species' but different varieties within the same organism.
---------
And from your second link:
"We first estimated the effective number of genetic factors controlling differences in the cichlid head through a comprehensive morphological assessment of two Lake Malawi cichlid species and their F1 and F2 hybrid progeny."
If those two morphologically different cichlids are producing F1 and F2 generations, that means that their offspring is fertile, which again indicates their genetic compatibility. Those again, are just varieties within the same organism.